Los argumentos a partir del Ajuste Fino del universo

Los argumentos a partir del Ajuste Fino del universo

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

Writing an article on the fine-tuning of the universe that is too short and simple runs the risk of being the target of doubts and objections, and a lengthy and technical exposition runs the risk of being difficult for the reader to understand or even boring due to the complexity of the content. That is why I am grateful to Professor Robin Collins for not only allowing me to translate much of his work, but also for providing me with the slides that he uses in his lectures on the fine-tuning of the universe, which is the visual material that I will use in this article.

WHAT IS FINE TUNING?

Before we make an argument about fine-tuning, the first thing to do is to know what fine-tuning is and whether there is such a thing for the universe. Well, by fine-tuning we mean the fact that the universe is extremely fine-tuned for the existence of what Professor Collins calls “embodied conscious agents,” which require stable and reproducible complexity. An analogy for the universe would be a biosphere. The biosphere has to be perfectly structured and fine-tuned to be self-sustaining (the right environment, energy consumption, etc.) so that human beings can exist in it. The universe is like that, that is how it must be structured in an extraordinary way.

Three kinds of Fine Tuning for life

The evidence for fine-tuning of the universe is of three kinds:

  1. The fine-tuning of the laws of nature.
  2. Fine-tuning of physical constants.
  3. The fine-tuning of the initial mass-energy distribution of the universe at the time of the Big Bang.

The Fine Tuning of the Laws of Nature

When we talk about the fine-tuning of the laws of nature we mean that the universe must have precisely the right set of laws in order for highly complex life to exist.

Examples:

  • Existence of Gravity.
  • Existence of the Electromagnetic Force.
  • Existence of the Strong Nuclear Force.
  • Existence of the Quantification Principle.
  • Existence of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Let’s take the existence of gravity, without it you have no stars, you have no planets, and therefore you have no life! Or without the Electromagnetic Force you would have no atoms, so you would not get life either, then you have no chemical bond, and of course, you have no life either.

We can mention other examples, but this is enough to understand that the appropriate laws are necessary for life of great complexity to exist. If any of these laws were missing, such a type of life would be impossible.

Fine-tuning of physical constants

By physical constants, we mean the fundamental numbers that occur in the laws of physics, many of which must be fine-tuned to an extraordinary degree for life to occur.

For example, take the Gravitational Constant—designated by G—which determines the strength of gravity through Newton’s Law of Gravity:

fine tuning jairo 2

Where F is the force between two masses, m 1 and m 2 , that are a distance r apart. If you increase or decrease G then the force of gravity will correspondingly increase or decrease. (The actual value of G is 6.67 x 10 -11 Nm 2 / kg 2 .)

Now, to get an idea of ​​how finely tuned the force of gravity indicated by G is we must first look at the range of fundamental forces in nature:

fine tuning jairo 1

Note that the Strong Nuclear Force is 10,000 sextillion [1] times the Force of Gravity. Too complicated? Well, let’s make this more digestible. Imagine you have a ruler big enough to stretch across the entire universe, now we’ll place the points where the Force of Gravity and the Strong Nuclear Force would be located. We’d get something like this:

fine tuning jairo 3

Now, Professor Collins calculates that if you increase the Force of Gravity by one part in 1034 of the range of the fundamental forces (i.e. a billion-fold increase in strength), then even single-celled organisms would be crushed, and only planets smaller than about 31 metres in diameter could support life with our brain size. Such planets, of course, would not be able to support an ecosystem to sustain life for our level of intelligence.

We could continue giving examples of what would happen if you kept playing with the value of the Gravity Force, but I think this one is more than enough to understand what we are talking about.

So we can see that for life to occur, the Force of Gravity must fall within a very, very narrow range of values ​​compared to the total range of the fundamental forces.

Let’s look at one more analogy. Imagine a radio dial large enough to span the entire universe. The station WKLF (K-Life) allows life. So:

fine tuning jairo 5

Only by tuning into the right frequency (the first thousandth of an inch) of all those on the radio dial (more than 15 billion light years away) can you get a universe with life.

fine tuning jairo 4And so the same thing would happen if you were to play around with the values ​​of the other constants, if they had slightly different values ​​then complex material systems would not arise, so if you want life to exist then the constants of physics must fall within a very narrow range of values. This is widely acknowledged, the famous cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, says:

The remarkable fact is that the values ​​of these numbers [i.e. the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely tuned to make the development of life possible. [2]

Former director of Cambridge University Observatories, Dr Dennis Sciama, also states:

If you change the laws of nature a little bit, or you change the constants of nature a little bit… it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop. [3]

Fine-tuning the Initial Mass-Energy Distribution

fine tuning jairo 6

What does the fine-tuning of the initial mass-energy distribution mean? Well, according to standard cosmology, the universe started with the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago. All the matter was condensed into a region smaller than the size of a golf ball, then it exploded and expanded. And in order for that matter to get galaxies, and to get life, it had to have a very precise arrangement. Professor Collins gives us an analogy of this: If you look at a zygote with a powerful microscope, you would see that it is intricately structured. It wouldn’t look that way from the outside, you would just see it as a blob of protoplasm, but under the microscope, you would have an intricate structure of DNA and all the other kinds of organelles in cells to make up a human being. So, in the same way, the universe has to be in an extremely precise state, and those are the initial conditions, the fine-tuning of mass-energy to get galaxies, stars, and ultimately to get like us.

Now comes the important question, how precise must the initial mass-energy distribution be for life to exist? Well, Roger Penrose, one of the UK’s leading theoretical physicists and cosmologists answers this question in his book The Emperor’s New Mind :

fine tuning jairo 7

(Phase space is a space of possibilities, with a standard probability measure that tells us how likely it is to be in that part of that possibility space.)

A figure so incredibly large that Penrose says:

We couldn’t even write the whole number in ordinary decimal notation: it would be a “1” followed by 10 123 “0”s. Even if we wrote a “0” for every proton and every neutron in the entire Universe—and added all the other particles as well—we would still be way short [4] .

Here is an analogy for the formidable precision of the Big Bang explosion according to Penrose’s calculations, which must be much greater than that needed to blow up a pile of rubble into a fully formed building filled with desks, tables, chairs and computers!

fine tuning jairo 8

So we can conclude that the initial mass-energy distribution must fall within an excessively narrow range for complex life to occur.

Summary

We have seen that for complex life to exist in the universe, it has to be well structured as a biosphere, and that we have not just one piece of evidence for this, but many pieces of evidence that point to such fine-tuning, and these are the cases of the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, of the physical constants and of the initial distribution of mass and energy.

FORMULATING THE UNIVERSE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

There are different ways to formulate an argument from fine-tuning, in this post I will focus only on the versions of William Lane Craig, Robin Collins, and Peter S. Williams.

William Lane Craig’s Fine-Tuning Argument

What is the reason for this fine-tuning? Well, there are three options that have been offered as the best explanation and with which we can formulate our first premise of the argument:

  1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

Physical need

Let’s first consider the physical necessity alternative. This alternative tells us that the universe must be one that permits life – in other words, that the values ​​and constants cannot be any other way. In this alternative, the existence of a universe that prohibits life is impossible . Of course, that is a mistake, since such a universe is not only possible , but much more probable than a universe that permits life! And the reason for this is because the constants and quantities are not determined by the laws of nature – they cannot be predicted on the basis of current physical theory. There is no reason or evidence to suggest that fine-tuning is necessary.

One could appeal to string theory, but this does not settle the matter at all. Stephen Hawking says:

Even if we understand the ultimate theory, it is not going to tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of spacetime, the symmetry group or Gauge group, or other parameters of the effective low-energy theory… It is not going to determine how this energy is partitioned between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence… So to return to the question… Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not. It allows for a vast landscape of possible universes, in which we occupy an anthropically allowed location [5] .

And that vast landscape of possible universes that string theory allows for is about 100,500 different  universes, all of them governed by the present laws of nature, so it does nothing to deliver the observed values ​​of the constants and physical quantities in a necessary way.

Chance/brute fact hypothesis

Now let’s move on to our second alternative: Chance or brute fact.

fine tuning jairo 10

One Universe Theory

fine tuning jairo 9

This hypothesis comes in two forms, the first is with respect to the one universe theory, i.e. our universe is the only one in existence. Those who hold this alternative tell us that the fact that a life-supporting universe exists is just a chance occurrence that has and requires no explanation. In simpler words, our existence is just an “extraordinarily lucky accident.” Of course, this hypothesis is not accepted among most people because of its improbability. As Robin Collins exemplifies, it would be as improbable as believing that a painting of Abraham Lincoln’s face is the result of an extraordinarily lucky ink spill, because it is not only extraordinarily improbable, but it is highly significant, these two characteristics go together.

Professor Peter S. Williams puts it this way, we do not infer intelligent design just from high improbability, but from the combination of a “highly improbable” event with a “very special” pattern. He says:

A long string of random letters is complex (unlikely) but unspecified (does not fit any independently determined pattern). A short string of letters might be specified – such as the word “so” – but it would not be sufficiently complex to overcome chance’s ability to explain the event. Neither complexity without specificity nor specificity without complexity requires us to infer design. However, if you saw a Shakespeare play written on a Scrabble board, you would infer design. A play is both specific and sufficiently complex to merit an inference of design on the grounds that “in all cases where we know the causal origin of… specific complexity, experience has shown that intelligent design plays a causal role” [6] . So too with cosmic fine-tuning [7] .

Professor Williams gives us another analogy: Imagine you see someone enter a sequence of numbers into an ATM and then get their money back. What would you infer from this situation? Was the subject lucky or did they get their money by design? It is when a complex, contingent event matches a specific, independent pattern that we infer design.

Multiverse Theory

But maybe if you spilled ink enough times you would get Lincoln’s face, or if you put too many monkeys with too many typewriters, one of them might write a paragraph of Shakespeare’s play. This is what is known as the so-called “multiverse hypothesis,” according to which there are a huge number of universes with not only different initial conditions, but also with different values ​​of the constants of physics, and even laws of nature. Therefore, simply by chance, some universe will have the “winning combination” for life and thus have an explanation for why a universe exists that allows life. The most common analogy proposed by the proponents of this hypothesis is that of the lottery, in the same way that you can draw many tickets with different combinations of numbers, only one of them has the “winning combination” and the person who gets that ticket will simply be the winner by luck, a mere matter of probability. This hypothesis is widely accepted and has quite prominent proponents, such as Professor Max Tegmark, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cosmologist, Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer to the Royal Family of Great Britain, Stephen Hawking, among many others.

Purely Metaphysical Version

The multiverse theory has two versions, the first of which is the Purely Metaphysical version , which tells us that all possible universes exist, all possible realities exist, so there is one reality where the Marvel universe really exists, another reality where the Lord of the Rings books are true, all those universes exist as a brute fact without any further explanation. This version, for obvious reasons, is not widely defended today.

Universe Generator Version

This hypothesis tells us that universes are generated by some physical process that Professor Collins calls a “Universe Generator.” Unlike the metaphysical version, the Universe Generator version is defended by many leaders in cosmology such as Andrei Linde of Stanford University and Britain’s Sir Martin Rees.

fine tuning jairo 11

So you pick the ocean of your choice, then pour a lot of soap on it, so thousands of bubbles are formed, and these are the universes, of course, the ocean keeps expanding at a great rate so the bubbles never collide with each other.

We now turn to the answer that Robin Collins focuses on to rule out the Universe Generator hypothesis, which is this: The Universe Generator itself would have to be “well designed” to produce a single universe that would support life.

fine tuning jairo 12

Professor Collins gives us the following analogy of the Universe Generator:

fine tuning jairo 13

Much like the bread machine, it seems that the Universe Generator must have the right laws and have the right ingredients (initial conditions) to produce universes that support life.

Professor Collins tells us that if we examine the super-string inflationary multiverse carefully, it requires at least five special mechanisms/laws in order to produce at least one life-supporting universe. So he simply sends the design issue up one level. Collins concludes that at best, the Universe Generator hypothesis eliminates the quantitative case for design based on fine-tuning of constants, but it still requires precise laws and the right initial conditions in order to work. So after all, we can still ask the valid question: “Who or what ‘designed’ the Universe Generator?”

Design Hypothesis

Since we have ruled out physical necessity and chance from our basket of alternatives, we can now state the second premise of our argument:

  1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due neither to physical necessity nor to chance.

But if that is the case, then it inevitably follows that

  1. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

One would think that the “design” alternative is just an option offered by theists on a whim or because they simply “need to fill the gap” left by science, so it must necessarily be included in the list of explanations and not as a common sense interpretation. But that is not so, that fine-tuning is due to design is not only a claim made by theistic cosmologists, but by non-theists as well! Theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies states: “The impression of design is overwhelming” [8] and astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist, once stated: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has tinkered with physics… and that there are no blind forces of nature . ”

Robin Collins’ Fine-Tuning Argument

The main feature of this argument is that it does not say that the evidence for fine-tuning proves that the universe was designed, or even that the universe is likely to have been designed. Rather, the argument simply concludes that fine-tuning strongly supports theism over the atheistic one-universe hypothesis.

Our first premise of the argument can be stated as follows:

  1. The existence of fine-tuning is not improbable under theism.

As we have seen throughout the article, justifying this premise is easy and not at all controversial: since God is a good being and it is good that intelligent and conscious beings exist, it is neither surprising nor unlikely that God would create a world that can sustain intelligent life.

The following premise may be as follows:

  1. The existence of fine-tuning is highly unlikely under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

This premise encompasses the options presented in an atheistic worldview: chance/brute fact and physical necessity. The objections are the same as those we used above for Craig’s argument.

And the conclusion of the argument would be:

  1. From premises (1) and (2) and by inference from the overriding confirmation principle, it follows that the fine-tuning data provide strong evidence in favor of the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

This is the way Collins presents his argument. The evidence for fine-tuning is a lot like fingerprints found on a gun: although they may provide strong evidence that the defendant committed the murder, one cannot, from the evidence, conclude that the defendant is guilty; one would also have to look at the counter-evidence offered. For example, ten reliable witnesses claimed to have seen the defendant in the park at the time of the shooting. In this case, the fingerprints would still count as significant evidence of guilt, but this evidence would be counterbalanced by the testimony of the witnesses. Similarly, the evidence for fine-tuning strongly supports theism over the atheistic one-universe hypothesis, although it does not by itself show that everything that is considered theism is the most plausible explanation of the world. Nevertheless, as we have seen so far, the evidence for fine-tuning provides a much stronger and more objective argument for theism than the strongest atheistic argument against theism.

Peter Williams’ Fine-Tuning Argument

The first premise of Williams’ argument [9] is as follows: 

  1. If something exhibits specified complexity, then it is probably the product of design.

This premise appeals to our common sense of inferring design when we see a “highly improbable” event with a “very special” pattern. This is not a religious claim or a bias coming from the theist; as we have seen above, the design inference for cosmic fine-tuning arises naturally even among atheist physicists.

Our second premise is as follows:

  1. The fine-tuning of the universe exhibits specified complexity.

It is obvious that nothing more needs to be said to justify this premise than what has been presented for the previous arguments. It can therefore be concluded that:

  1. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is probably the product of design.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

So at the end of the day we have a very strong case for the fine-tuning of the universe, and in turn at least three ways to make an argument for the existence of God.

I would like to end this article with a few words from King David:

The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day by day he tells the world, night by night he makes it known. (Psalm 19:2)

Grades

[1] Translating the huge quantities from English to Spanish is complicated because it is also necessary to convert from the English system of measurement to the international one. For the conversion of the measurements my friend Chris A. Du-Pond helped me with this.

[2] Hawking, 1988, A Brief History of Time , p. 125.

[3] From the BBC special, “The Anthropic Principle.”

[4] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind , p. 310

[5] SW Hawking, “Cosmology from the Top Down” a paper presented at the Cosmic Inflation Conference at Davis, University of California, Davis, May 29, 2003.

[6] Stephen C. Meyer, ‘Teleological Evolution: The Difference it Doesn’t Make’,  www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_teleologicalevolution.htm

[7] Peter S. Williams, “Five Arguments For Theism,” http://www.peterswilliams.com/2016/02/09/five-arguments-for-theism/#_edn8

[8] Paul Davies, The Cosmic Code, 1988, p. 203

[9] http://www.peterswilliams.com/2016/02/09/five-arguments-for-theism/ (Last visited October 17, 2018).

 

Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as Social Media Director and author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship minister at the Christian Baptist Church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.

/by
A Deeper Understanding Of Christ's Love Through Suffering

A Deeper Understanding Of Christ’s Love Through Suffering

, ,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

How can you helplessly watch as a child dies from agonizing cancer? Doesn’t the love you feel tell you that that suffering is evil and a God who is all loving and all powerful would rescue that child? How can God be all loving and all powerful if He allows such a child to suffer and die?

This is a challenge that is often raised by atheists to reject the God of the Bible. But today, I am not going to answer the atheist who raises the challenge as an armchair hypothetical that they have never experienced; instead I want to speak to the person who either has experienced this tragedy or is in the middle of it, and it causes them to be skeptical of the goodness and even existence of God.

This Is What Love Feels Like

But could God have a purpose for the pain that you feel? Before I get to that, please watch this tribute to those who have cared for a loved one at the end of their life: This Is What Love Feels Like, by dc Talk, inspired by Toby McKeehan‘s experience:

Knowing Love Through Suffering

Jesus knew the suffering that would take Him to His physical limits, yet He persisted and conquered: This was His love for you as He suffering the torture of crucifixion. If you have been taken to your limits through the suffering of a loved one, you know this love.

Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not know this love for someone else that takes us to our limits (and live to tell of it), what love truly feels like. Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not have the privilege of getting a trace of understanding of the depth of Christ’s love for us that took Him to the end of His physical limits. Caring for a spouse, parent, or child as they leave this world has to be one of the most painful experiences, and we do not escape it unchanged by the suffering it has caused. We are wounded, but we can use those wounds to heal. We can become the wounded healer (see my post “The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose In Your Suffering” for more on this concept). And just as we are alive today to be wounded healers, Jesus conquered death through His bodily resurrection to be the Ultimate Wounded Healer that we point to.

While it is a privilege to experience what this kind of love feels like (though it comes at a great cost, just like it did for Christ), our experience only scratches the surface of the love that Christ has. And our experience is only one person (or maybe a few people in extremely tragic situations) at a time. But Jesus’ love, as He suffered death, was not just for you or just for a few people, it was for every person (John 3:16).

Conclusion

We must not forget that our suffering in this life will come to an end. It is finite, and this finite suffering is not worth comparing to the infinite glory that will one day be revealed in us (Romans 8:18) and can be revealed in others to enjoy with us if we are willing to be used by God to be wounded healers. Do not be discouraged. Our perfect God has a purpose for your suffering. Without Him, your experience is a gratuitous pain with no purpose or meaning. But because God exists and Christ is resurrected from the dead, your experience is both purposeful and meaningful. Through your experience, God has blessed you with a deeper understanding of His love for you, and now He gives you the privilege to speak hope, life, love, meaning, and purpose to the brokenhearted suffering and struggling the same as you are.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RFk6Ql

/by
Emotional Doubt and How to Combat It

Emotional Doubt and How to Combat It

By Brian Chilton

In a recent class at Liberty University, it was noted how 80% of a person’s doubts do not stem from intellectual problems with Christianity, but rather from emotional doubt. Emotional doubt is a problem for every person, but it seems to be a tougher concept for men to combat. The reason is that most men abstain from talking about their emotions. Many will suppress the emotional doubt and ignore it. However, such actions do not eliminate the doubt. Emotional doubt may address issues concerning the loss of a loved one, an unanswered prayer, or frustrations in life for which one blames God.

Interestingly, emotional doubt can be combated by a form of biblical cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some may claim, “Hold up, Brian! You are talking that psychology mumbo-jumbo! What good is cognitive therapy?” Actually, cognitive behavioral therapy is quite a good practice. Paul argues the following:

“Don’t worry about anything, but in everything, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any moral excellence and if there is anything praiseworthy—dwell on these things” (Php. 4:6-8).[1]

The believer should focus on those things that build up one’s faith and not on worry and fears which cause anxiety. CBT does just that. Using CBT to combat emotional doubt is quite effective. CBT can also combat depression and anxiety. Biblical CBT follows three steps.

  1. Identify your lies. First, recognize the doubts and fears you tell yourself. You may say, “I am going to certainly fail this test even though I have studied hard for it. I am too dumb to pass it.” Realize that the statements do not correspond with reality. If you have studied hard for the test, then you have learned the information which will be on the test. You are certainly not too dumb to learn the material.
  2. Remove your lies by arguing against it and give reasons for your optimism. Second, argue against the lies you are telling yourself with a positive, encouraging case. You may tell yourself that if you fail the test that it would be the worst thing in the world. In this case, remind yourself that you have studied the material and have learned the material quite well. Even if the worst should happen and you fail the test, it is not the end of the world. As bad as it may be, it is not as bad as you’re making it out to be.
  3. Replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Third and finally, replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Realize that “I am able to do all things through him (Christ) who strengthens me” (Php. 4:13, brackets mine). Realize that “all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). With these truths in mind, the doubts and anxieties begin to lose their grip.

CBT is a biblical practice that all believers need to practice. For too long, we have allowed the devil to steal our joy and hope. Often, we are our own worst enemies as we feel too frightened to take a chance on something for playing the “what if” game. Stop letting fear and anxiety steal the thunder from the grace that God has given you. Always keep in mind that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and sound judgment” (2 Tim. 1:9).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2PtiUhm

/by
Apologists, Please Don't Forget The Gospel

Apologistas, por favor no se olviden del evangelio

By Michael Sherrard

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. — ROMANS 1:16

As an apologist, let me encourage you to trust in the power of the gospel. Do not be ashamed to speak freely about the goodness of God’s mercy and kindness. I have said before that most people reject God because of emotional and volitional problems. The intellect simply hides these problems. Even as we talk about evidence, logic, and arguments, apologists must remember that the reason many people will not give themselves to God is because of their hearts. But the love and kindness of God’s grace can soften a hard heart and will draw many to Him.

All people recognize two things: there is a God, and they have broken a standard of morality by which they should be judged (Rom. 1:18–2:16). All people struggle with guilt, and guilt is a powerful force that causes many people to run from God instead of to Him. Guilt often manifests itself in pride and the attempt to rationalize or atone for sin. Sometimes guilt results in depression, feelings of inadequacy, and the belief that no one should love them. Whatever you look at it, guilt is a hindrance to repentance.

But God is greater than our sin. His love is more powerful than our guilt. And His kindness will draw many to repentance. Don’t put your hope in logic, history, science, and argument. Trust in the beauty of the gospel and the mercy of God. Don’t be ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that works for salvation (Rom 1:16). Share it as much as you can.

The thing most overlooked in apologetics is the Gospel. Apologists tend to never go that far in conversations with unbelievers. Sometimes we think other people won’t believe the nonsense of the Cross. So we resort to talking only about what seems reasonable. But don’t shy away from preaching what in this world is considered nonsense. Remember that apologetics is a servant of the Gospel, and sometimes the servant has to get out of the way of the master.

Apologists, share the gospel with others and tell them how God’s mercy has transformed you. You can offer the hope of a changed life. Tell your story. Explain what it feels like to be forgiven. Speak of your hope for heaven. And speak with joy of the peace of God that now fills your life.

Invite skeptics to know God and enjoy all that comes from life in Christ. Feel free to tell them that you know Him, that you have experienced Him, and that they can too. There is value in your experience and in your personal knowledge of God. Talk to them about that. Some people say you can’t argue with a changed life, but you can; I argue with good, changed Mormons all the time. But there is value in your conversion, in the reality in which God can be known and experienced. So tell them your story and invite them to enter into one for themselves.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, author of Relational Apologetics, and director of Ratio Christi College Prep. RCCP is an organization that seeks to equip the church for effective evangelism by teaching high school students apologetics, fundamental Christian doctrine, and biblical evangelism.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2AdotuY

Translated by Italo Espinoza Gomez

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by

Jesus Is Risen

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Originally confined to a small circle of believers centered in Jerusalem, Christianity’s stunning transformation into the world’s most popular faith is one of history’s greatest, most miraculous stories.

Frank interviews #1 bestselling author David Limbaugh about his new book Jesus Is Risen, where he provides a riveting account of the birth of Christianity. Using the Book of Acts and six New Testament epistles as his guide, Limbaugh talks about the exhilarating journey through the sorrow and suffering, as well as the joys and triumphs, of the apostles and other key figures as Christianity bursts through the borders of Judea following the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. You don’t want to miss it.

 

/by
Is the Bible from God

¿Proviene la Biblia de Dios?

By Mikel Del Rosario

Does the Bible really come from God? I recently conducted a workshop on this topic for fifth and sixth graders at Bayside Church in Granite Bay, CA. I wanted to help the Christian kids talk about this topic with their friends. But I knew it had to be something simple to understand and easy to remember. We ended up having a lot of fun with games, activities, stories, and illustrations that helped them stick with these ideas.

After each session, parents told me how much they appreciated the lesson. Another reminder that adults value “simple” things, too.

In this post, I’ll show you a quick way to answer the question, “Is the Bible really from God?” and give you a little reminder so you can remember 3 reasons skeptics should pay attention to the Bible. But first, you should know that when it comes to the Bible, there are only two ways to look at it.

Only 2 options

The Bible says it is God’s message to us (2 Tim 3:16-17). That’s either true or false. So is there any reason to think the Bible is more than a book written by men? What kind of book is the Bible? We have only two answers:

  1. It’s just a bunch of stories and ideas about God written by people.
  2. It is truly the Word of God given to the people.

Here’s how I started the kids segment:

  • Mikel: “How many of you have read a book that you really enjoyed this summer? Tell me the name of an author you like.”
  • Students: (Different answers, including Agatha Christie, JK Rowling, CS Lewis, etc…)
  • Mikel: Now, do you think that all these authors would have the same opinion about the things that adults say we shouldn’t talk about at parties: politics and religion? Do you think they would agree?
  • Students:
  • Mikel: Of course not. No big surprise, right? No, the big surprise is when you consider the Bible…

3 Reasons Skeptics Should Pay Attention to the Bible

Imagine a UPS truck delivering Bibles, because the letters U, P, and S can help you remember 3 reasons why skeptics should pay attention to the Bible. These are 3 simple discussion points you can share with a friend or even your own children.

Think of it in terms of cause and effect. The Bible is an effect. What is the cause? If the Bible were just a book written by men, it would be pretty hard to explain the following:

  1. Your unit

The “U” can help you remember the word for  unity . The Bible is surprisingly united. When you hold a Bible in your hands, you are holding a collection of 66 ancient documents. They were originally written in 3 languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We’re talking about 40 different authors, writing over a period of over 1,500 years! Imagine these guys writing in different times, places, languages, and cultures.

And yet the authors agree with each other on highly controversial ethical and religious issues. And most importantly, they all arrived at a single message about God.

  1. His prophecy

The “P” can help you remember the word prophecy. The Bible records exact predictions about the future that came true. A couple of examples are specific prophecies about Jesus and Israel.

Predictions about Jesus

The Old Testament prophets said that the Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10), from the lineage of King David (2 Sam. 7:12-13), and that he would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). 700 years before Jesus was born, the Jewish prophet Isaiah foretold very specific things about the Messiah (ch. 53). For example:

  • That would be whipped
  • That I would die with evil people
  • That he would be buried as a rich person

More than 1,000 years before Jesus was born, King David predicted that the Messiah’s hands and feet would be pierced, but not one of his bones would be broken (Psalm 22). All of these things about Jesus, the Messiah, came to pass.

Predictions about Israel

Isaiah also predicted that the Jewish people would return to their lands for a second time (11:11-16). The first time they returned was in the 6th century with Ezra and Nehemiah. But Israel was expelled in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Their second return was when Israel became a nation in 1948. I told the children:

This is something that really happened and maybe some of your grandparents saw it! And if not, your parents must have seen it on the news.

  1. Follow here!

The “S” can help you remember that the Bible is still here !  And why is this so important? Because people have tried to wipe the Bible off the face of the earth and they won’t succeed. Not only that, it’s still the number one best-seller.

This is just the beginning. If you really take the time to look more closely, you will see that we have good reason to believe that the Bible is not just people’s ideas about God written down. The Bible is God’s Word given to people.

Lesson 4

Fact or fiction:

Can I Trust My Bible? This workshop was based on lesson 4  of my Accessible Apologetics curriculumfor youth and adults. It includes games, illustrations, PowerPoint, and more. Download a free lesson from the series. 

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a PhD student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel is a professor of Christian apologetics and world religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an MA in Christian apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and an MA in divinity from Dallas Theological Seminary, where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and host on “the Table Podcast.” Visit his website at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2CkdMZi

Translated by Natalia Armando

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by
Colossians 2:8 Does Not Condemn Philosophy

Colossians 2:8 Does Not Condemn Philosophy

By Evan Minton 

Some well-meaning but very misinformed Christians discourage the study of philosophy on the basis of a verse in Colossians chapter 2. In Colossians 2:8, the apostle Paul wrote: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.” This verse has become the chief proof-text for anti-philosophy Christians. In fact, even the famous reformed preacher John MacArthur argued against philosophy using this text. In The MacArthur Study Bible, he wrote “You know what philosophers are? They’re doodlers with words instead of pencils. They just make a whole lot of verbal squiggles. Colossians 2:8 says this: ‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy.’” Unfortunately, this verse has been majorly misinterpreted.

Keep The Text In Its Context

When you look at the verse in context, what you find is that Paul wasn’t saying “Philosophy is bad”, but rather, he was warning his readers to be on the lookout for bad philosophies.

To really understand what Paul is talking about in this verse, one needs to move beyond the verse itself. One needs to read it in context. That means both the immediate context (the verses before and after it) and its cultural context. Moyer Hubbard of Equip.org writes “Looking now at Colossians and the specific context of chapter 2, we find Paul addressing a local assembly that had been infiltrated by a form of false teaching that threatened to undermine the gospel he preached. Paul does not give us enough information to identify precisely what sect or ‘philosophy’ he is describing. There are some clues, however, that suggest that it was perhaps a syncretistic hybrid of Jewish mystical practices and popular pagan folk-belief: he mentions the observance of special days, including the Sabbath (v.16); visionary experience and the worship of angels (v.18); submission to the “elemental spirits of the world” (v.20);6 and abstinence (vv.21,23). Paul clearly is attacking a peculiar form of religious speculation, but it is impossible to identify it with any of the major schools of philosophy known to us from the Greco-Roman world. In fact, it is important to keep in mind that the Greek word philosophia (and its Latin cognate) had a variety of meanings in this period, and, depending on the context, might be translated ‘religion,’ ‘speculation,’ or ‘investigation.'”[1]

We gain more information on this incorrect philosophy by taking into account how Paul describes it in the 8th verse of Colossians 2: Paul says that it’s founded on “human traditions and the elemental powers of the world, and not on Christ.” The key phrase here is “[based] not on Christ.” Paul was targeting “philosophical” speculations that oppose the truths of Christ.

Moreover, I think the phrase “human traditions,” gives us a clue that this ungodly speculation was Jewish in nature. The phrase “human traditions” appears in only one other place; Mark 7:8, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees as those who reject “the commands of God and hold to human traditions” (cf. Galatians 1:14). Paul uses the term “elemental spirits of the world” similarly in referring to the Galatians’ doing the Torah stuff in Galatians 4:3. As Hubbard commented, “That Paul could refer to this syncretistic Jewish speculation as a ‘philosophy’ is in keeping with how Hellenistic Jews of the period sometimes referred to their faith.”[2] He said that because extra-biblical Jewish writers of the time called their theological beliefs “philosophies”. For example, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus calls Judaism and its multiple sects as “philosophies”[3] (those sects being the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees)[4]

4 Maccabees refers to Judaism as “our philosophy…teaching temperance, self-control, courage” (5.22‑23). Therefore, it very well could be the case that Colossians 2:8 is referring to Judaism and the Judaisers, employing their terminology when referring to their beliefs. If that is the case, then one cannot use Colossians 2:8 to condemn the study of philosophy as a whole, for Paul is merely warning against philosophical systems that oppose the gospel, in this case; the philosophy of the Judaisers.

Dissing Philosophy Is Logically Self-Refuting

Besides the exegetical fallacies in taking Colossians 2:8, there is a logical problem as well; namely, it’s self-refuting. In any attempt you make to formulate arguments against philosophy, you will be reasoning philosophically about philosophy. Yet if you’re reasoning philosophically about philosophy, you’re engaging in the very thing Paul (allegedly) told us not to do; philosophy! This is why Christians who say “I don’t need philosophy” are frequently met with the retort “Really? That’s a nice philosophy.” and “You shouldn’t do philosophy” with “Is that your philosophy?” Are we to believe that The Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to teach self-refuting…. philosophies?

Conclusion
The Apostle Paul was not anti-philosophy. Those who argue that he was, do so by ripping Colossians 2:8 out of context. Moreover, to say you shouldn’t do philosophy and then proceed to give any arguments for it is self-refuting, as you’re doing philosophy.

I’ll end this blog post with a quote from Dr. William Lane Craig: “the man who claims to have no need for philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by it”[5]

Notes

[1] “Is Colossians 2:8 A Warning Against Philosophy?” – by Moyer Hubbard, http://www.equip.org/article/is-colossians-28-a-warning-against-philosophy/

[2] ibid.

[3] Flavius Josephus Against Apion 2.47.

[4] Flavius Josephus Antiquities 18.11.

[5] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/hawking-and-mlodinow-philosophical-undertakers

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RFw7oL

/by
What I Learned About Faith While Thinking I Had Cancer This Week

What I Learned About Faith While Thinking I Had Cancer This Week

By Natasha Crain

A few days ago I felt a rather large, firm lump on my body.

My first reaction was, “What on Earth is that?”… followed closely by, “Oh my gosh. This could be it.”

Honestly, I started to panic. I know I’m at a higher risk for certain types of cancer and I imagined the worst.

My doctor wasn’t able to get me in for five days. I spent that five days consumed by Google research—diagnosing myself, guessing what stage cancer it would be if I had it, and looking at 5-year survival rates for the various stages. Every time the kids were occupied, I would quickly grab my phone to Google something new about the size, shape, and texture of my unwelcome lump.

I eventually concluded that there was a pretty good chance it actually wasn’t cancer given the characteristics of the lump. I was still scared, but the more logical side of me believed it was more likely than not to be benign. When the morning of my appointment rolled around, I went in with the hope of reassurance.

That didn’t happen.

The doctor said he was “pretty” confident it wasn’t cancerous. I asked him if “pretty” confident meant something more like 51 percent or 90 percent, thinking he would say 90 percent. He replied, “More like 51 percent.”

The words hung in the air for what seemed an eternity. This is just as likely to go either way. 

The doctor gave me an urgent referral for the various tests needed to determine what was going on later that day. I went home and had some very dark moments.

Fear consumed me. I prayed with desperate, tear-covered pleas for health.

I felt absolutely nothing back from God.

Just a menacing silence.

And at that moment, the voices of so many skeptics filled my head…

Why would God be so hidden at a time like this? Is He really there?

As an apologist—someone who knows well the evidence for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity—I knew what I would say to someone else asking that question. I could talk all about evidence and the philosophical reasons for divine hiddenness.

But at that moment, I didn’t want any more evidence. I didn’t want to make a case to myself for the truth of Christianity. I didn’t want to weigh facts to see what was most reasonable.

I wanted an experience.

I wanted a feeling.

I wanted to be overcome with the presence of God, with a feeling of peace, or with a supernaturally-given reassurance that I was going to be OK.

None of those things happened. And in that darkest of moments, I understood more than ever why experience so often trumps evidence… for both skeptics and Christians.

When Experience Trumps Evidence for Skeptics

Christian apologist Sean McDowell and the “Friendly Atheist” blogger Hemant Mehta were recently on the Unbelievable podcast by Justin Brierley. It was a fascinating discussion on what both Christians and atheists get wrong about the other side. You can watch it here on YouTube or listen through the podcast. I thought Sean was brilliant, and his gracious but pointed comments and questions revealed many of the inconsistencies in Mehta’s worldview.

But one thing stood out to me more than any other. Someone asked what it would take to change each of their minds about what they believe. Mehta (and I’m paraphrasing) said that he’s heard all the kinds of evidence that Christians offer and there’s really no evidence that could be convincing…outside of a personal experience.

This was absolutely intriguing to me. He had spent much of the discussion explaining how he doesn’t believe because there’s no evidence for God’s existence, but when pressed on what would change his convictions, he acknowledged that there’s no objective evidence—evidence outside himself—that would change his mind. It would have to be a personal experience (and he said he would question even that).

His comment made me reflect on years of hearing from skeptics through my blog. Though the reason for unbelief is almost always framed as “lack of evidence,” the comments typically come sandwiched with a list of experiential issues:

I’ve never experienced God doing anything in my life even when I desperately needed it.

God never answered my prayers when I was a Christian.

If God exists, he wouldn’t have let my daughter be born with this disability.

I used to be a Christian, but when I was losing faith I cried out to God for a sign, and nothing happened.

Truthfully, I’ve always mentally responded to such statements with, “but these things, logically speaking, don’t mean God doesn’t exist…we have to look at the objective evidence for the whole picture of reality.” And that’s true.

But I can now better understand that experience can be so powerfully negative that we can become closed to considering any evidence outside of ourselves. We naturally trust our interpretation of our experiences over our interpretation of things like the complexity of DNA.

When Experience Trumps Evidence for Christians

People who are passionate about apologetics often lament the fact that so many Christians don’t understand the need for it in today’s world. What we hear all the time from church-goers is that they already believe, so they don’t need all this “evidence stuff.”

As someone who writes and speaks frequently about all the important reasons why we desperately need this “evidence stuff” to be known in the church today, that’s very frustrating. And it can be even more frustrating when Christians say they don’t need it because they have experiences instead:

They’ve felt God’s presence, so they know He’s there.

They see God in their spouse and kids.

They know God is there from that still, small voice inside.

They see God in the beauty of the mountains.

Why do I say frustrating? Let me put on my apologist hat: because experiences are subjective. In a world that is increasingly hostile to the idea that Christianity is true, Christians need to be able to point to something outside of themselves as evidence for their beliefs. If your child says they don’t feel God, and you say you do, how helpful can your personal experience be to them? But when you can point to the objective evidence for God’s existence in the world around them, the historical evidence for the resurrection, and the evidence for the reliability of the Bible, you’re able to ground their faith in something you can mutually access.

However, just as powerfully negative experiences can trump evidence for atheists, powerfully positive experiences can trump evidence for Christians. What they’ve experienced has felt so certain that the value of outside evidence seems to pale in comparison.

What, Then, Is the Value of Objective Evidence for Anyone?

Through this brief ordeal, I’ve understood more than ever that nearly everyone trusts, by default, their experiences more than objective evidence. And frankly, it’s experience that we desperately want. Fine-tuning arguments schmarguments. We would all rather take a powerful feeling of God’s presence any day.

What, then, is the value of apologetics?

A lot. But I’ll stick with three points.

  1. For those who have had powerfully negative experiences, apologetics remains a way to compare our subjective experiences to the objective evidence for the truth about reality… when we’re not grieving. Apologetics may be of very little use for most people in desperate times, but that doesn’t negate the longer term need. When we teach our kids to build a faith based on evidence, it doesn’t mean that when difficult times come they will necessarily resort to a simple response of, “No matter how I feel while pondering if I have cancer, I know Christianity is true!” I certainly didn’t. But it does mean that over the longer term they will have the tools needed to assess their personal experiences in light of objective evidence. Ultimately, confidence in the truth of Christianity—grounded in good evidence—gives people well-justified eternal hope that brings perspective to our (often tragic) negative experiences.
  2. Similarly, for those who have had powerfully positive experiences, apologetics provides a needed check against reality. Having hope without good reason is a delusion. We shouldn’t be content to assume God is there only because we had a powerful feeling while the praise band played. It’s also safe to assume that no one will live an entire life of powerful positive experiences—every Christian goes through times when God seems far. When powerful positive experiences become more distant, it’s easy to doubt their validity. Learning apologetics helps keep us grounded when the experiential highs wear off.
  3. For those who haven’t had particularly powerful positive experiences, apologetics provides conviction instead of a feeling that the lack of an experience means a lack of God’s existence. When I was a teenager, I went to a youth conference where the speaker stirred up a lot of emotions and many kids in the room were crying. I wasn’t. My youth leader pulled me aside and said, “Natasha, I noticed you aren’t as emotional as the others here. Are you sure you’re close to God?” I’ll never forget that assumption that closeness to God equals a highly emotional experience. If that’s the expectation, and you don’t experience God as you would like, you can quickly assume He just might not be there. When we teach our kids the objective evidence for the truth of Christianity, however, they gain a conviction of their beliefs and realize faith isn’t about waiting for a certain experience to happen.

I eventually got in for all the testing to determine what the lump was all about. It was the longest few hours of my life but ended with the best possible news: it was nothing but a common benign cyst that required no further testing or procedures. I was free to walk out.

I got to my car and cried tears of relief.

And now here I am, back to life as normal… but I want to acknowledge that there are many who don’t get this good news. I have several friends with cancer right now. They are living with the day-to-day uncertainties that consume your every waking second. I almost didn’t write this post because it seems too easy to write when you are no longer in the circumstance. I hope it will be taken in the spirit in which it was intended, however: a simple reflection on something I learned during a (relatively) few moments of desperation.

 

Natasha Crain administra su blog de apologética cristiana para padres, ChristianMomThoughts.com. Obtuvo su MBA en Marketing y Estadísticas en UCLA y consiguió un certificado de apologética cristiana de la Universidad de Biola. Actualmente reside en California con su esposo Bryan junto con sus tres pequeños hijos.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2QG02f7

/by
Five Reasons We Know God Wants Christian Women to Do Apologetics

Cinco razones por las que Dios desea que las mujeres cristianas hagan apologética

Como cristianas, Dios nos ha mandado no solo a compartir que creemos en Jesucristo, sino también a explicar el porqué. Aquí presentamos algunas evidencias en las Escrituras de que Dios nos ha llamado a nosotras las mujeres a conocer y a presentar las razones probatorias por las que creemos en el cristianismo, lo que conlleva el ministerio de la apologética. Piensa en estas cinco razones:

  1. Como mujeres, fuimos creadas como seres racionales llamadas a amar al Señor nuestro Dios no solo con nuestros corazones, sino también con nuestras almas y nuestras mentes (Mateo 22:37). Nuestra confianza en Cristo no está cimentada en una emoción ciega, sino en una evaluación intelectual de la evidencia de que nos ha convencido de la verdad del cristianismo y eso ha dado lugar a una fe razonable. Lucas 10:38-42 registra la visita de Cristo a la casa de dos mujeres llamadas Marta y María. Cuando Marta se quejó de que María era una holgazana por no ayudarla a preparar la comida, Jesús alabó a María por escuchar Sus enseñanzas. Aunque Él probablemente apreció los esfuerzos de Marta en la cocina, podemos inferir razonablemente que Él afirmó la curiosidad intelectual y el compromiso de María de ir en pos de la verdad.
  2. Como mujeres, somos seres relacionales que estamos llamadas a amar a nuestro prójimo como a nosotras mismas (Mateo 22:39). Nuestro prójimo incluye a la gente que está en nuestra esfera de influencia, comenzando por nuestros familiares inmediatos. Por ejemplo, Dios nos insta a amar y a respetar a nuestros esposos (ver Efesios 5). ¿Cómo puede la apologética reforzar nuestro matrimonio? Si nuestro esposo es creyente, podemos afirmar las verdades para edificar su fe al igual que la nuestra, y ayudarle cuando lucha con la duda. Pero, ¿qué hacemos si estamos casadas con un esposo incrédulo? Cuando conocemos las evidencias de nuestra fe, podemos amarlo sin ser sacudidas en nuestra fe, aun cuando nuestro esposo sea hostil a las afirmaciones cristianas. No utilizamos el conocimiento como un arma contra él. En cambio, se nos da la libertad de ponernos a la defensiva para practicar 1 Pedro 3:1-4, procurando vivir conforme a una vida transformada por Cristo delante de nuestro esposo, de modo que “sea ganado sin palabra por la conducta de [su] esposa”. Lee Strobel, un antiguo ateo y autor de “El caso de Cristo”, dijo que su esposa se había convertido en creyente, y el cambio en su manera de tratarlo a él y a sus hijos fue tan atractivo que él se embarcó en su propia búsqueda y finalmente, confió en Cristo.

Otra relación en la que la apologética puede ser útil es con nuestros hijos. Tito 2:5 describe a las mujeres como “cuidadoras” en su hogar que les enseñan a sus hijos. “Cuidar” implica vigilar o resguardar. El conocimiento de la apologética nos equipa para vigilar y ser de influencia en la cosmovisión de nuestros hijos. Antes de resguardar la cosmovisión de nuestros hijos, debemos saber qué es una cosmovisión, la evidencia que afirma la verdad de la cosmovisión cristiana, las aseveraciones de otras cosmovisiones y cómo responder a tales aseveraciones con el fin de demostrar que el cristianismo tiene el mayor sentido. Eso es la apologética. Entonces, cuando nuestra hija llega a casa de la escuela diciendo que su amiga es hindú, por ejemplo, podremos responderle cuando pregunte por qué los hindúes tienen santuarios en sus casas y los cristianos no.

Nuestra relación con otras mujeres también pueden ser redentoras y edificantes, mientras procuramos presentarles a Cristo a nuestras amigas incrédulas y guiar a las mujeres más jóvenes en la fe para que maduren en su relación con Cristo. Tito 3:2-5 nos manda a nosotras como mujeres maduras a ser “maestras del bien” (RV 1960) para las que vienen tras nosotras. Este llamado no es una opción para nosotras. Las mujeres más jóvenes nos necesitan desesperadamente para que las guardemos bajo nuestras alas y las animemos a que vivan para Cristo en una cultura que cada vez se vuelve más hostil al cristianismo. Finalmente, las mujeres están singularmente equipadas para entablar conversaciones sobre la fe con las mujeres incrédulas. Para algunos grupos de mujeres, nuestra disposición a acercarnos a ellas es la única esperanza que tienen de conocer sobre Cristo de una manera comprensible. Por ejemplo, solo las cristianas pueden alcanzar a las musulmanas que no se sienten cómodas hablando con los hombres.

  1. Como mujeres, somos responsables de testificar lo que hemos visto y oído con respecto a la identidad y resurrección de Cristo, y la cantidad de evidencias del cristianismo que Dios ha inculcado dentro del orden creado. Según Marcos 16:1-11, las mujeres fueron las primeras en ser testigos de la tumba vacía y a ellas se les indicó que fueran a decirles a los demás. Si Jesús les confió a las mujeres la responsabilidad de hablar la verdad del único acontecimiento más trascendental de la historia de la humanidad, entonces, nosotras también podemos testificar. Y no solo podemos compartir nuestra experiencia personal con Jesucristo como lo hicieron las mujeres de la tumba, sino también las evidencias históricas, científicas y filosóficas que nos ha provisto nuestro amoroso Dios. Al hacerlo, como mujeres cumpliremos con el mandamiento de hacer discípulos en todas las naciones (Mateo 28:19-20).
  2. Como mujeres, estamos llamadas a estar preparadas para dar razones convincentes de nuestras creencias, aun si debemos sufrir al hacerlo. 1 Pedro 3:15-17, un versículo lema para la apologética, nos dice que debemos estar “siempre preparados para presentar defensa ante todo el que os demande razón de la esperanza que hay en vosotros, pero hacedlo con mansedumbre y reverencia; teniendo buena conciencia, para que en aquello en que sois calumniados, sean avergonzados los que difaman vuestra buena conducta en Cristo. Pues es mejor padecer por hacer el bien, si así es la voluntad de Dios, que por hacer el mal”. (LBLA). Resulta interesante que los primeros siete versículos de 1 Pedro 3 él se dirige primero a los esposos y después a las esposas. Luego, en el versículo ocho, que finaliza con el mandamiento de los versículos del 15 al 17, Pedro dice, “Finalmente, todos ustedes, hombres y mujeres” en su llamamiento posterior. Así que, tanto hombres como mujeres estamos llamados y tenemos el honor de participar en los padecimientos de Cristo en la defensa de la fe.
  3. 5. Finalmente, como mujeres cristianas debemos ser renovadas en el espíritu de nuestra mente (Efesios 4:11-24). No debemos permanecer siendo bebés en Cristo, sin entender los elementos básicos de nuestra fe, y siendo fácilmente movidas de un lado a otro. Una vez, una amiga me dijo luego de leer “El código DaVinci” que hubiera deseado no haber leído ese libro jamás, pues provocó dudas en ella. Cuando fallamos en renovar el espíritu de nuestra mente con la verdad, somos sacudidas con cada doctrina nueva que llega a la escena. El conocimiento de la apologética cimenta nuestras creencias en la fuerte evidencia y hace que nuestra fe en Cristo sea la respuesta más razonable a un Dios que ha saturado el universo de testigos de Su presencia y de Su carácter.

Así que, cuando alguien nos pregunte por qué creemos que Dios desea que las mujeres cristianas hagamos apologética, podremos compartirle las cinco razones. Podremos explicarles que Dios nos hizo seres racionales y relacionales, nos hizo testigos responsables de la verdad, y nos proveyó el conocimiento con el cual podemos prepararnos y ser renovadas en nuestra mente para compartir las evidencias abrumadoras de que el cristianismo es verdadero.

 

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2C9M7Ke

Traducido por Natalia Armando

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

/by

Is it wrong to impose religious beliefs in politics?

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Frank thoroughly examines a comment by Rachel Bird posted on the New York Times comments section of Tim Keller’s latest article. He dissects the comment and answers the following question: Is it wrong to impose religious beliefs in politics?

Here’s the comment by Rachel:

“As a strong believer in the separation of Church and State, I believe that religion has no place in political discourse. I am sick and tired of so-called Christians and other faith-based groups. using their religious beliefs to influence public policy. You want to pray. Fine. Go to church. You want to live your life in accordance with some religious belief. Fine. Do it in the privacy of your home. But, do not use your religious belief to argue that your right to free speech is infringed upon when you are asked to bake a cake for a same sex couple, provide birth control under your company’s health insurance plan, deny science, etc. In short, do not use your religious beliefs to deny my right to live as I see fit. To influence public policy which denies millions of women, minorities, and children, access to health care, abortion, voting rights, civil rights. I am simply fed up with the hypocrisy to the so-called religious people in this country preaching to the rest of us who simply want to live our lives freely and openly without the burden of dealing with someone’s else’s gods foisted upon us.”

-Rachel Bird

/by